ArticleScientific reports2026
Advancing terrestrial laser scanning for 3D classification of Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides L.) using unsupervised, machine learning, and deep learning methods.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The case for an epiphyte area index.The New phytologist · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Quantifying the distribution of Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides L.) is challenging because it grows suspended from high tree branches, limiting manual sampling. Terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) provides a non-destructive means of capturing vegetation structure in three dimensions. However, no established methods exist for identifying Spanish moss from TLS data. We evaluated five classification methods for distinguishing Spanish moss in TLS-derived point cloud data: Graph, DBSCAN, Random Forest (RF), Kernel Point Convolution (KPConv), and PointNet++. PointNet++ achieved the highest accuracy (81%), followed by DBSCAN (70%), KPConv (61%), RF (54%), and Graph (52%). Unsupervised methods required minimal computational resources (2-3 min, 8-16 GB memory) without training. RF required 3 h for training, 8 for prediction with 1024 GB memory. Deep learning methods required substantially more: KPConv needed 60 h for training, 4 for prediction (256 GB), while PointNet++ required 48 h for training, 1 for prediction (128 GB). Agreement was lowest in the central and upper canopy due to occlusion. Surface variation, PCA1, and verticality contributed most to accurate predictions. These results demonstrate the feasibility of using TLS and advanced classification methods for non-destructive Spanish moss mapping and highlight the accurate classification ability of PointNet++ for future biomass estimation at landscape scales.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.